from the get-things-up-to-speed dept

Well, this is disappointing. Back in September, we were happy to see both Apple and Google announced that their mobile platforms would be encrypted by default (for local storage, not for data transmissions), which has kicked off something of a new round of Crypto Wars, as law enforcement types have shoved each other aside to spread as much possible FUD about the "dangers" of mobile encryption (ignoring that they also recommend mobile encryption to keep your data safe).

However, as Ars Technica reported earlier this week, it appears that while Google is encrypting by default on its own Nexus phones that have the latest Android (Lollipop), it slightly eased back the requirements for its OEM partners such as Motorola and Samsung who make their own devices. Default encryption is now "very strongly RECOMMENDED" rather than required. And even with that "very strong RECOMMENDATION," it appears that neither Samsung or Motorola are enabling default encryption on its latest devices.

While some will likely jump to the conclusion that law enforcement pressure is at work here, a much more likely explanation is just the performance drag created by encryption. Last fall, Anandtech did some benchmarking of the Nexus 6 both with encryption on and off, and as the site itself says, the results are "not pretty." Given the competitive market, there's a decent chance that the big phone manufacturers didn't want to get bad benchmark ratings when phones are compared, and those made the decision to go against the "very strong recommendation."

Hopefully this gets sorted out quickly, as phonemakers can optimize new phones for encryption. And, honestly, as the Anandtech report itself notes, these benchmarks are basically meaningless for real world performance:

The real question we have to ask is whether or not any of these storage benchmarks really matter on a mobile device. After all, the number of intensive storage I/O operations being done on smartphones and tablets is still relatively low, and some of the situations where NAND slowdowns are really going to have an effect can be offset by holding things in memory.

But, it appears, while mobile phone makers don't want to take the chance of bad benchmarks hurting their reputation, they're less concerned about leaving consumers' data exposed.

It's disappointing that this is where things are today, after so much focus on default encryption just a few months ago, but hopefully it's just a temporary situation and we'll get to default encryption very, very soon.

from the what-a-joke dept

Over the last year, there's been plenty of good news in the fight against the abuse of patents to stifle innovation. A bunch of court rulings have gone the right way, with the biggest being the Supreme Court's ruling in the Alice v. CLS Bank case, that has resulted in many courts invalidating patents, the US Patent Office suddenly rejecting more patents and a rapid decline in patent lawsuits.

Based on that, you might think that we no longer need patent reform. But you'd be wrong. Patent trolls are regrouping and fighting back. Despite the big drop in patent lawsuits following the Alice ruling, patent trolls have come up with some new ideas, and have recently ramped up the filing of new trolling lawsuits at a rapid pace. And there have even been a few victories. While the dollar amounts were relatively low (especially compared to what was asked for), a troll who claimed to have a patent over Bluetooth 2.0 (despite "inventing" it years after Bluetooth 2.0 was on the market) was awarded $15.7 million, and the world's biggest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures actually won a case against Symantec (but got "only" $17 million).

But, earlier this week, there was the big one. A pure patent troll, Smartflash, with a collection of vague and broad patents (US 7,334,720, US 8,118,221 and 8,336,772 -- all for "data storage and access systems") has been awarded $532,900,000 from Apple, despite everyone happily admitting that Apple came up with the idea on its own. Here's the East Texas (of course) court jury form:

And, yes, Apple could probably pay that off with the spare change falling off the edge of Tim Cook's desk, but that's not really the point. Rulings like this don't seem to create any value towards actual innovation. Smartflash once had a product, but it failed in the marketplace over a decade ago. Apple built a product that people actually wanted. Shouldn't we be rewarding the people who actually make the things people want, rather than subsidizing failure by the successful?

Smartflash's lawyer told Ars Technica's Joe Mullin that this ruling is actually a "great example of why the patent system exists." Actually, it's a great example of how screwed up the patent system is. The lawyer also spewed this load of bullshit:

The thing about a patent is—let's say you have a university professor who spent two years researching something. It's irrelevant the effort that [an infringing company] spent to build it. It's the person who came up with it first. That's the way the Constitution, and the patent laws, are written. It's designed to cause people to spend money and time innovating. The patent office publishes it, so that advances the state of the art. In exchange for that, you get a property right.

That's also not how the Constitution is written, though it is (unfortunately) how patent laws are written. But that's not a way to get people to spend "money and time innovating" because the actual innovators here -- Apple -- had to pay out to the guy who failed in innovating. Being "first" isn't innovating. Building the product someone wants is.

Either way, Apple will appeal this ruling (and those other rulings are likely to be appealed as well). And in the last few months, CAFC has actually been shown to have gotten the message about problems with its previous interpretation of patent law. But, in the meantime, we still need serious patent reform.

from the call-it-a-twofer... dept

Thought that the revelations of NSA/GCHQ spying were dying out? Having some "surveillance fatigue" from all the stories that have been coming out? Have no fear -- or, rather, be very very very fearful -- because two big new revelations this week show just how far the NSA will go to make sure it collects everything. First up: your hard drives. Earlier this week, Kaspersky Lab revealed that the NSA (likely) has figured out ways to hide its own spyware deep in pretty much any hard drive made by the most popular hard drive manufacturers: Western Digital, Seagate and Toshiba.

The firm declined to publicly name the country behind the spying campaign, but said it was closely linked to Stuxnet, the NSA-led cyberweapon that was used to attack Iran's uranium enrichment facility. The NSA is the U.S. agency responsible for gathering electronic intelligence.

A former NSA employee told Reuters that Kaspersky's analysis was correct, and that people still in the spy agency valued these espionage programs as highly as Stuxnet. Another former intelligence operative confirmed that the NSA had developed the prized technique of concealing spyware in hard drives, but said he did not know which spy efforts relied on it.

As the report notes, it appears that this is a kind of "sleeper" software, that is buried inside tons of hard drives, but only "turned on" when necessary. The report notes that it's unclear as to how the NSA was getting this software in there, but that it couldn't do it without knowing the source code of the hard drive firmware -- information that is not easily accessible. A few of the hard drive manufacturers have denied working with the government on this and/or giving them access to the firmware. It's possible they're lying/misleading -- but it's also possible that the NSA figured out other ways to get that information.

And that brings us to door number two: your mobile phone's SIM card. Today, the Intercept revealed (via the Ed Snowden documents) how the NSA and GCHQ were basically able to hack into the world's largest manufacturer of mobile phone SIM cards in order to swipe encryption keys, so that your friendly neighborhood intelligence snooper can snoop on you too:

The company targeted by the intelligence agencies, Gemalto, is a multinational firm incorporated in the Netherlands that makes the chips used in mobile phones and next-generation credit cards. Among its clients are AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint and some 450 wireless network providers around the world. The company operates in 85 countries and has more than 40 manufacturing facilities. One of its three global headquarters is in Austin, Texas and it has a large factory in Pennsylvania.

In all, Gemalto produces some 2 billion SIM cards a year. Its motto is “Security to be Free.”

With these stolen encryption keys, intelligence agencies can monitor mobile communications without seeking or receiving approval from telecom companies and foreign governments. Possessing the keys also sidesteps the need to get a warrant or a wiretap, while leaving no trace on the wireless provider’s network that the communications were intercepted. Bulk key theft additionally enables the intelligence agencies to unlock any previously encrypted communications they had already intercepted, but did not yet have the ability to decrypt.

The details of just how the NSA hacked into Gemalto are quite a story -- and proves what a load of crap it is when the NSA and its defenders insist that they only target bad people. As former NSA (and CIA) boss Michael Hayden recently admitted, they actually like to spy on "interesting people." And who could be more interesting than the people who have access to the encryption keys on billions of mobile phones?

So, yeah, the NSA and GCHQ basically spied on IT folks at the company until they found a way in. So, the NSA spies on "bad guys" and "IT people" for the good guys. Because, I'm sure they'll claim, it helps them get the bad guys. We've seen this before, when the GCHQ hacked into Belgian telco giant Belgacom, allowing them to tap into communications at the EU Parliament. Hacking into various companies appears to be standard operating procedures for the NSA/GCHQ these days, with no thought to the collateral damage being caused.

And, yes, both of these hacks basically involve giving the NSA an astounding amount of access to our electronic devices:

Leading privacy advocates and security experts say that the theft of encryption keys from major wireless network providers is tantamount to a thief obtaining the master ring of a building superintendent who holds the keys to every apartment. “Once you have the keys, decrypting traffic is trivial,” says Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union. “The news of this key theft will send a shock wave through the security community.”

[....]

The U.S. and British intelligence agencies pulled off the encryption key heist in great stealth, giving them the ability to intercept and decrypt communications without alerting the wireless network provider, the foreign government or the individual user that they have been targeted. “Gaining access to a database of keys is pretty much game over for cellular encryption,” says Matthew Green, a cryptography specialist at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute. The massive key theft is “bad news for phone security. Really bad news.”

Between both of these big stories this week, it's clear that the NSA is basically deeply buried in pretty much every bit of electronic equipment these days, with the tools ready to go to spy on just about anything. The idea that this power isn't being abused regularly is pretty laughable.

from the La-Cosa-Nostra:-Large-Appliance-Division dept

We're used to corporate battles over product placement, intellectual property and market share, but they usually take the form of courtroom disputes, targeted advertising and bland mission statements. But two major consumer electronics companies' recent fight has not only found its way into a courtroom, but also involves the alleged deployment of Mafia-esque tactics.

Last fall, Samsung placed some of its washing machines in a German shopping mall as a teaser/advertisement for its appearance at an upcoming trade show. That's when things turned surprisingly unprofessional.

LG, of course, has denied this. It doesn't deny the fact that it sent a small team of executives to the mall to check out the competition. It also doesn't deny that its execs did a little stress testing of the washing machine's door, something that was captured by the mall's security cameras. (See video below.)

Samsung claims LG's personnel "broke" the washing machine door deliberately in order to sabotage Samsung's reputation ahead of the upcoming show. LG claims that if the door was indeed broken by its employees' downward shoves, it's only because Samsung's washer doors are crap.

This dispute eventually made its way from mall display to the Korean courts. LG tried to head off Samsung's lawsuit by offering to purchase the washing machines (which retail for more than $2700 a piece). Samsung replied with a curt "Thanks, but see you in court."

The end result? An indictment of the executives involved in last year's Man vs. Competitor's Machine shoving match.

A top LG Electronics Inc. executive has been indicted by Seoul prosecutors for allegedly vandalizing several high-end washing machines manufactured by rival Samsung Electronics Co.

An LG Electronics spokeswoman said Sunday that Jo Seong-jin, head of the company’s home-appliance division, has been indicted on charges of deliberately damaging four Samsung “Crystal Blue” washing machines ahead of a trade show in Germany last September. Mr. Jo has also been charged with defamation and obstruction of business, she said.

Two other company executives have been indicted on similar charges over the same incident, the spokeswoman said.

LG had countersued for defamation and evidence tampering (it claims Samsung accessed the washing machines during their trip back from Berlin to be presented in court), but that will no longer move forward as a result of this court decision.

LG is now fighting back via its own corporate channel. It uploaded a video containing the questionable "examination" performed at the German shopping center, along with comparative demonstrations of everyday usage that supposedly exert as much strain on washing machine doors as Mr. Jo did. For reasons only known to LG, the video contains the sort of electronic library music more suited for painfully boring 5th period educational films than corporate exculpatory efforts… so heads up on that.

Fighting for a larger share of a $400 billion market is never going to be pretty, but until now, these companies have managed to keep these efforts hidden from the public. Sabotaging a competitor is generally the sort of thing done in secrecy, behind closed boardroom doors, rather than in full view of the general public and Samsung employees. Maybe the market is too large to keep the gloves on and the cutthroat tactics obscured. Any portion of $400 billion is a whole lot of money and the potential gain of a few points in market share could be tantalizing enough to persuade large companies to put their reputation on the line with the open appearance of mob-level impropriety. ("Nice washing machine you got here. Be a shame if the door didn't close properly.")

Money -- especially that much money -- does strange things to normally logical people. In the underrated Way of the Gun, when a long-time criminal is asked why he would do something terrible for a motivator as supposedly weak as "just money," he responds:

Not money, 15 million dollars. Fifteen million dollars is not money, it's a motive with a universal adaptor on it.

What's a few $2700 washers (and a few indictments) in a $400 billion market? Not enough to be of consequence and certainly not enough of a deterrent to head off future brute force attacks on competitors. I, for one, welcome our corporate giants' embrace of low-level thuggery, which is more interesting and more relatable than a string of noncommittal and obfuscatory sentences hidden in the back pages of quarterly SEC filings. I'm looking forward to a world where demographic groups are captured not via Super Bowl ads and targeted marketing, but by competitors tripping "check engine" lights in competitors' showroom vehicles or pinstriped execs hacking the home screen of the latest connected home thingie to display nothing but a steady stream of porn shots.

This is the future we consumers deserve. Too many products fail to excite buyers, what with a preponderance of me-too styling and features. If the products don't move us, maybe the companies themselves will. It's time to be wowed by the gutsiest display of executive-level disregard for corporate propriety. We need our business leaders to step up and vow to be the next Suge Knight or Broad Street Bullies of their respective fields. Even if LG's execs didn't actually break Samsung's washer doors, they should be commended for their willingness to stroll into a public place and give every appearance that they were doing exactlythat.

But it's something else stupid that Samsung did this week that got less press attention, but that I actually find far more troubling. Numerous Samsung smart TV users around the world this week stated that the company has started injecting ads into contentbeing watched on third-party devices and services. For example, some users found that when streaming video content from PC to the living room using Plex, they suddenly were faced with a large ad for Pepsi that actually originated from their Samsung TV:

"Reports for the unwelcome ad interruption first surfaced on a Subreddit dedicated to Plex, the media center app that is available on a variety of connected devices, including Samsung smart TVs. Plex users typically use the app to stream local content from their computer or a network-attached storage drive to their TV, which is why many were very surprised to see an online video ad being inserted into their videos. A Plex spokesperson assured me that the company has nothing to do with the ad in question."

Now Samsung hasn't responded yet to this particular issue, and you'd have to think that the company accidentally enabled some kind of trial ad injection technology, since anything else would be idiotic brand seppuku (in fact it does appear like it has been working with Yahoo on just this kind of technology). Still, users say the ads have them rushing to disable the smart portion of Samsung TVs, whether that's by using a third party solution or digging into the bowels of the TV's settings to refuse Samsung's end user agreement. And that raises an important point: many consumers (myself included) want their TV to be as slack-jawed, glassy-eyed, dumb and dim-witted as possible.

Like broadband ISPs and net neutrality, Samsung clearly just can't help itself, and is eager to use its position as a television maker to ham-fistedly inject itself into a multi-billion dollar emerging Internet video market. But that runs in stark contrast to the fact that most people just want their television (whether it's 720p or 4K) to simply be a dumb monitor they hook smart devices of their choice up to. Just like people want their broadband ISPs to get out of the way and provide a quality dumb pipe, many people just want a traditional, dumb television to do a great job displaying the signals sent to it and nothing more.

Dumb TVs just make more sense for most users: many people own televisions for ten years, and the streaming hardware embedded in these sets quickly becomes irrelevant even with updated firmware. Dumb TVs, with less sophisticated internals, should also be cheaper to buy. And if you're any kind of respectable audiophile, you've got game consoles and devices like Roku hooked into a receiver and a decent 5.1 (or above) system, making the set's internals redundant. Swapping out a crop of the latest and greatest (not to mention relatively cheap) Rokus or Chromecasts every few years just makes more sense for most of us.

Last I saw, around 50% of people who buy connected TVs aren't using the connected portion of the set. Yet if you peruse the latest sets (especially the ongoing standards minefield that is 4K or UHD) you'll find that buying a dumb television is getting increasingly more difficult. I won't even get into the problems with HDCP 2.2 DRM stifling 4K growth and confusing the hell out of consumers on the bleeding edge, as that's another article entirely.

Bottom line: I want my pipes dumb, my TVs dumber, and my choice of a full variety of intelligent devices and services without bull-headed companies stumbling drunkenly into my line of sight. Samsung's clumsy week simply couldn't have illustrated the growing need for dim-witted television sets any better.

from the I-hear-the-secrets-that-you-keep/when-you-talk-by-the-TV dept

Guess who's eavesdropping on you now? It's not some nefarious government agency (although, rest assured, there has been no downturn in surveillance). Nope, it's that smart TV you paid good money for and invited into your home.

The "now" is misleading. Smart TVs have been doing this ever since manufacturers decided customers preferred to order their electronics around orally, rather than using the remote they can never find. And that's just the "eavesdropping" part. Most smart TVs are harvesting plenty of data on top of that, including viewing habits, search terms, browsing history… pretty much anything that makes a TV "smart" is collected and transmitted not just to the manufacturer, but to plenty of unknown third parties. Usually, this information is used to send "relevant ads" to TV owners, as if the several hundred dollars spent on the device wasn't enough of a revenue stream.

Samsung -- which is currently catching a lot of internet heat for its so-called "Privacy Policy" -- is no exception. It's the wording used that's making it the target du jour, turning other recent privacy policy villains (LG: "agree to share damn near everything or enjoy your super-expensive 'stupid' TV"; Microsoft: "why don't we just treat your living room like a movie theater and use our camera technology to count heads and charge increased VOD 'admission'") into distant memories.

To provide you the Voice Recognition feature, some voice commands may be transmitted (along with information about your device, including device identifiers) to a third-party service that converts speech to text or to the extent necessary to provide the Voice Recognition features to you. In addition, Samsung may collect and your device may capture voice commands and associated texts so that we can provide you with Voice Recognition features and evaluate and improve the features. Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition.

Obviously, some very temporary "collection" and "transmission" needs to take place to allow a third party service to "recognize" the user's voice and ensure the smart TV does what it's told. But Samsung also collects and captures these communications... and it doesn't really say how, where or for how long these are stored.

Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition.

with Orwell's:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment…

You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Fun stuff. The only thing missing from the scenario is a government intermediary. But it's not much a stretch to insert one.

It could certainly be construed that any personal communications collected and stored by Samsung would fall under the Third Party Doctrine. If a government agency (local law enforcement, FBI, etc.) wishes to acquire these, they wouldn't face much of a challenge because of the lowered expectation of privacy. If Suspect X is viewed carrying a Samsung smart TV into his home, law enforcement could issue a subpoena to Samsung to acquire any voice recordings it had collected from that device. Eavesdropping by proxy. Discuss a drug deal in front of the TV? Here come the cops. No warrants or wiretaps needed.

This hypothetical would require law enforcement to know the device's ID number, something that would be hard to obtain without an actual search warrant. In the most likely scenario, the voice recognition data would be collected after a regular search had been completed. Now, previous conversations people thought no one heard could be introduced as evidence against them, thanks to the widescreen narc installed on the premises.

Here's a hypothetical that's even more "fun" to consider: a law enforcement agency is aware certain smart TVs collect and store voice recordings (along with viewing habits, internet browsing history, search terms, etc.) So, officers kick off a gun amnesty program where unregistered weapons can be turned in for free big screen TVs. Now, this law enforcement agency has a small army of hi-def confidential informants installed in numerous homes. All data can be collected at the agency's convenience, using little more than the "unregistered guns must belong solely to criminals" rationale.

But Samsung isn't the only device manufacturer collecting, storing and transmitting its customers' everyday conversations. Others do it, too. Some just hide it better. In LG's 50+ pages of smart TV fine print, it says the following about voice recognition:

I agree that LG Electronics Inc. ("LGE") may process Voice Information in the manner set out in the Privacy Policy and below.

Voice Information refers to the recording of voice commands and associated data, such as information about the input device that is used to record commands (e.g., Magic Remote or built-in microphone), OS information, TV model information, content provider, channel information and service results.

I understand and agree that Voice Information may be use for the purpose of powering the voice activation feature when used to control, receive, and improve LG Smart TV Services and as described in the Privacy Policy.

I further understand and agree that LGE may share Voice Information with third parties, including providers of voice analytics.

I understand and agree that Voice Information may be transferred to, and used by, third party service providers on LGE's behalf in various countries around the world (including Korea), some of which may not offer the same level of data protection, for the purposes set out in the Privacy Policy.

And there's your Third Party Doctrine. All anyone arguing for the right to subpoena voice information has to do is point to the User Agreement as clear evidence that the person in question is voluntarily turning over voice recordings to a third party. And away goes the expectation of privacy.

We don't expect our devices to send overheard conversations to anyone other than the voice recognition technology provider. But they do. And they send it (and store it) without providing any specifics about the unnamed third parties, where they're located, how secure these transmissions are (to protect them from criminals -- the other unwanted "third parties") or how long the manufacturer itself retains this data.

The transparency level of these manufacturers rivals that of the government. And that's not a good thing, because it makes it far too easy for them to become willing partners with agencies that thrive on the abuse of the Third Party Doctrine. Samsung -- and manufacturers like it -- need to provide more than vague assurances. They need to explicitly explain what's happening to all the data they're collecting, especially when the collection involves entertainment devices listening in on private conversations... and calling it a "feature."

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The US smartphone market is currently dominated by Apple and Samsung for hardware, but that could change pretty quickly if consumers were offered something a bit more innovative than a bigger phablet. One concept that's been floating around is a modular phone that allows its owner to swap out various components -- making a customizable phone that could have a bigger battery or a better camera, depending on user preferences (instead of Apple or Samsung's upgrade cycle). If you haven't been following the modular phone projects out there, here are a few links -- if you think you can wait a year (or forever) to buy one.

from the about-freaking-time dept

Apple and Google have been fighting a long patent battle, often by proxy, over smartphones. It's long been known that Steve Jobs -- a guy who once said: "Picasso had a saying: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas" -- was absolutely furious that Android smart phones looked so much like the iPhone. That resulted in a series of patent battles that have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees for lots of different companies. That money could have gone towards greater innovation and competing in the marketplace, but instead it went to lawyers.

In a surprise late Friday announcement, the two companies now claim they've settled all patent lawsuits directly between the two and will work together on patent reform (hmm...). They also note that "the agreement does not include a cross license." That last point is important, because it actually means that Apple's other lawsuits against Android device makers, such as Samsung, will continue.

This isn't a complete end to the smartphone patent wars, but it's at least a first step -- and hopefully a recognition on Apple's part that just suing everyone for patent infringement isn't, perhaps, the smartest strategy.

from the fizzled-out dept

The second round of Apple v. Samsung patent battles hasn't received quite the same attention, and it appears that it mostly fizzled out with the jury as well. In a late Friday verdict, Apple technically won on two patents which the jury found Samsung infringed. However, three others it found that Samsung did not infringe. Meanwhile, Apple was found to have infringed on one of Samsung's patents. Apple had asked for $2.2 billion -- but the jury awarded it just $119.6 million. Still a significant sum, but only 5% of what Apple was seeking. As Joe Mullin notes:

While Apple "won" this trial, Apple simply lost on damages. There's the best way to describe a number that's such a low proportion of what it was seeking.

From the trial's very beginning, Apple lawyers said that the whole purpose of Samsung presenting two patents of its own and asking for the "small" sum of $6 million was a cynical one: to convince the jurors that patents aren't worth that much.

If that was Samsung's goal—today's verdict is "mission accomplished." Considering litigation at this level is something of a war of attrition; Samsung has shown that it can basically fight Apple to a standstill. It's doubtful that $120 million would cover Apple's legal bill for even this litigation, much less the whole worldwide patent war it launched.

Now, can we go back to actually competing in the marketplace? Eh, doubtful. This isn't over yet.

from the just-a-bad-idea-all-around dept

A new study from Strategy Analytics highlights what you almost certainly already know, that no one actually uses the crappy bloatware apps that Samsung puts on its phones. This shouldn't be a surprise at all. But I actually wanted to highlight a different issue I'd noticed recently: which is that not only do people not use the bloatware apps, by making them both default and unintstallable, Samsung pretty guarantees that everyone hates those apps.

Now, I can imagine the execs at various app developers who got all excited when they had a chance to become a default app on a Samsung flagship phone like the S3, S4 or S5. After all, Samsung sells a ton of these phones. So if Samsung approaches you and offers to make you a default, it's got to be hard to say no. Because what they're offering is to put your app in front of many millions of potential users. And given the big hurdle of getting people to even download free apps, that must seem like a huge victory.

Until you realize that everyone hates unnecessary and unwanted bloatware. Beyond the study above showing that no one uses those apps, I recently looked at the Google Play Store reviews of many of the Samsung choices for bloatware. And pretty consistently, the large majority or reviews are about how they don't know why the app is on their phone and they're pissed that they can't delete it. Take, for example, Blurb Checkout, part of Samsung's near-totally-useless "book-making app." People absolutely loathe it almost entirely because it's a bloatware default app. Out of over 22,000 reviews, it has over 16,000 one star reviews. And nearly all of the reviews look like the "highlighted" ones on the page:

Or how about the Lumen Toolbar? Frankly, I have no idea what it does, but it's there. The aggregate reviews on this aren't quite as bad as Blurb above, and there do appear to be some people who really do like this toolbar. But the reviews are still filled with angry rants:

I'm sure HP thought it was a great way to jumpstart its mobile printing efforts by having its HP Print Service Plugin installed as default bloatware on Samsung (and, apparently, on Nexus) devices. Until everyone started yelling about how they want that crap off their phone.

And, of course, none of this even touches on Samsung's own apps, in which it has weak copies of much better apps out there, such as S Health, S Memo and S Voice -- all of which are stuck on your phone, even though there are much better and much more functional alternatives available in the Play Store and elsewhere. The thing is, all of these apps could be the greatest possible apps in the world, but by making them part of preinstalled bloatware and making it so you can't uninstall them, it's pretty much guaranteeing that people will hate on these apps, making it even worse than just not using them -- they're actively harming the reputations of those apps for folks who might actually like them.